Thank you, Guest, for exemplifying the very officiousness that Jim is up against. Very illustrative.

In your own words, "the policy Jim is talking about is the security issue related to the packages themselves, who has authority to claim them, and what sort of identification they are required to show to pick up a package." Yes. The issue is, can they prove they are the person to whom the package is addressed. If they can, with a drivers license or a passport, then to withhold their mail for any reason is a bad idea - it may even be actionable, since it's a felony to tamper with the US mail.

Also, in your own words, "It is no different than the policy requirement that a student show their student ID when they pick up their financial aid checks, or pay their bills at student accounting, for instance."   One, you don't need an ID to pay a bill, at student accounting or anywhere else. You don't even need ID to make a deposit at a bank. They don't care who you are when you're giving them money, just when they're giving YOU money. Two, requiring a student ID when disbursing student financial aid at the beginning of term isn't the same as withholding your mail halfway through the semester.

Finally, the nonsense about how Jim will be sorry if that package he allowed the student to claim - after seeing the student's valid drivers license or passport - turns out to contain something BAD is just plain crapola.   Jim is in no way responsible for the contents of the package. To say that he could be is tacky in the extreme, and to say that it could be prevented by requiring a university ID of the recipient instead of a driver's license or passport doesn't make any sense.

And to suggest that Clint runs redlights and parks in handicapped spots? Don't you think you're going a bit too far?